As for point (C), I don't see that it achieves that at all. Clubs have far more obvious incentives to retain/recruit the best players and quite frankly all I see this achieving is forcing clubs to front load salaries, which in turn will create the farcical situation where a team is stacked with talent but still under the cap for a certain season because they have prepaid the bulk of their guns salaries in previous years.

As I said, I've yet to see a valid reason for the RLPA negotiating this arrangement and I can already see dramas being created from it.

The NFL has one. The NHL has one. The AFL has one. The NBA has one and they dont even have a hard salary cap.

The MLB doesnt have one and they have teams with a roster worth $225M in the same league as ones with $60M.

It absolutely helps keep the teams to a minimum standard and keeps the league competitive.

@Oz Sport Mad wrote:The NRL doesn't allocate the entire cap to a club do they, so it's not like a private owner is ever going to pocket cash out of the arrangement??

Right now that is actually what does happen. While the NRL talks about increasing the grant to each club to 100% of the salary cap, it is in fact separate from their wages bill altogether and goes into general club coffers. This means that a privately owned club that spends less on the wages does actually benefit the owner.

If the NRL grant is currently 100% of the cap, then the logical solution you would think (and also help prevent the risk of salary cap fraud) would be for the NRL to pay the wages directly, not the club. If the club doesn't spend all the cap, then they don't get the extra money. You'll then get all clubs spending exactly 100% of the cap. It also means that you could say to the players "all your wage will come from us, not the club. Third party payments will come direct from them, not the club. If you receive any payment from the club it is an illegal payment not allowed under the cap, and if you receive it and don't tell us, not only will the club be fined for salary cap breaches, so will you, and your manager, and you will be heavily suspended as well".

The NFL has one. The NHL has one. The AFL has one. The NBA has one and they dont even have a hard salary cap.

The MLB doesnt have one and they have teams with a roster worth $225M in the same league as ones with $60M.

It absolutely helps keep the teams to a minimum standard and keeps the league competitive.

See it would make sense when you have teams in the comp that aren't in the same ballpark e.g. your MLB example above.

But that certainly isn't the case in the NRL and if we had a team only paying their players $2.5M out of the $9.4M cap (which would be the equivalent of your MLB example), then they would be swiftly booted from the comp.

If the NRL are bank rolling the salary cap and the contracts have to be lodged with the NRL, why don't the NRL pay the players ? Any fines by the judiciary or for bringing the game into disrepute get withheld.

It seems simpler than paying the club who pay the player or withhold a payment and the club having to pay back any fines

See it would make sense when you have teams in the comp that aren't in the same ballpark e.g. your MLB example above.

But that certainly isn't the case in the NRL and if we had a team only paying their players $2.5M out of the $9.4M cap (which would be the equivalent of your MLB example), then they would be swiftly booted from the comp.

On what grounds? If there wasn't a salary floor and they weren't otherwise in breach of any ownership contract/conditions, they can't just be kicked out because their owner is keeping $7M of salary cap for himself/herself/shareholders.

Just because there isn't currently a hypothetical, poorly run club (lets call them the Kewcastle Nnights) owned by a mega rich owner (lets say a mining magnate) who may want to run the club purely as a business with no thought towards onfield performance or employee retention, doesnt mean there wont be in the future. He/she/they may think, shit these guys come last every year, nobody turns up to watch them anyway and I can get the same revenue through gates/merch if I run a team of bricklayers out (and honestly, who would notice) and I save millions on salaries. That's more or less what happens in the MLB.

The RLPA likely just followed the lead set by other PAs around the world. Because it works to keep player salaries (as a collective) as high as possible.

said it a while back, but with all the increased cap scrutiny lately, i think the only way forward is salary cap transparency, it won't tell the whole story with TPA's and such, but i think it will ease some minds to see how the clubs make all the pieces of the cap puzzle fit together, as opposed to how it is now with the club owners taking a fucked-up rubiks cube into a private room, coming out with a completed one and everyone going "how the fuck?! there no way you did that, you smashed it against the wall and then put the pieces back together, didn't you?"

@No Worries wrote:If the NRL are bank rolling the salary cap and the contracts have to be lodged with the NRL, why don't the NRL pay the players ? Any fines by the judiciary or for bringing the game into disrepute get withheld.

It seems simpler than paying the club who pay the player or withhold a payment and the club having to pay back any fines

EDIT - yeah what Dip said

I would suggest because of the extra work it would create for the NRL? Keeping on top of each club's cap situation etc and then the implications that come in to play if a club is found to be over the cap. "Well you were paying them, when didnt you make sure they were under the cap".

Right now that is actually what does happen. While the NRL talks about increasing the grant to each club to 100% of the salary cap, it is in fact separate from their wages bill altogether and goes into general club coffers. This means that a privately owned club that spends less on the wages does actually benefit the owner.

If the NRL grant is currently 100% of the cap, then the logical solution you would think (and also help prevent the risk of salary cap fraud) would be for the NRL to pay the wages directly, not the club. If the club doesn't spend all the cap, then they don't get the extra money. You'll then get all clubs spending exactly 100% of the cap. It also means that you could say to the players "all your wage will come from us, not the club. Third party payments will come direct from them, not the club. If you receive any payment from the club it is an illegal payment not allowed under the cap, and if you receive it and don't tell us, not only will the club be fined for salary cap breaches, so will you, and your manager, and you will be heavily suspended as well".

You are correct that the NRL grant will match (or they have even suggested exceed) the salary cap but in addition to the player salaries, the operating costs of running a club (even just the football related expenses) would far exceed the NRL grant.

So I guess my point was more about this ridiculous suggestion that a private owner would be able to pull off some sort of rort where they play their players SFA and pocket the leftover NRL grant.

Separate issue regarding the NRL just paying the players directly but that does seem like it would be a smart move.

I would suggest because of the extra work it would create for the NRL? Keeping on top of each club's cap situation etc and then the implications that come in to play if a club is found to be over the cap. "Well you were paying them, when didnt you make sure they were under the cap".

I duno tho.. there must be more substantial reason

They have a cap auditor who no doubt has buddies so they should be keeping on top of a club's cap situation. But I do think it comes down to something as simple as the admin cost that would go with it. The NRL would have to either employ a payroll team or out source it and pay a vendor. The cost is always better in someone else's business.

So I guess my point was more about this ridiculous suggestion that a private owner would be able to pull off some sort of rort where they play their players SFA and pocket the leftover NRL grant.

Yeah I cant see that happening... seems crazy that the owners wouldnt have to account for where the salary cap money is going - when its meant for the players. I just couldnt see owners being able to get away with it.

Also, if the NRL directly paid players then wouldnt they become employees of the NRL and not the clubs? There would be all sorts of legal implications if the NRL directly paid players wouldnt there?

On what grounds? If there wasn't a salary floor and they weren't otherwise in breach of any ownership contract/conditions, they can't just be kicked out because their owner is keeping $7M of salary cap for himself/herself/shareholders.

Just because there isn't currently a hypothetical, poorly run club (lets call them the Kewcastle Nnights) owned by a mega rich owner (lets say a mining magnate) who may want to run the club purely as a business with no thought towards onfield performance or employee retention, doesnt mean there wont be in the future. He/she/they may think, shit these guys come last every year, nobody turns up to watch them anyway and I can get the same revenue through gates/merch if I run a team of bricklayers out (and honestly, who would notice) and I save millions on salaries. That's more or less what happens in the MLB.

The RLPA likely just followed the lead set by other PAs around the world. Because it works to keep player salaries (as a collective) as high as possible.

Missed this post but to answer your question, on the grounds of the NRL handing out the team licences and there being a number of solid consortium's already positioning strongly for the next one that become available.

Anyway back to my original point, I'm yet to see a valid reason for the RLPA pushing this minimum cap spend.....and 'following the lead of other sports' isn't actually a valid reason.

Also, if the NRL directly paid players then wouldnt they become employees of the NRL and not the clubs? There would be all sorts of legal implications if the NRL directly paid players wouldnt there?

All the players would be private companies (at least the smart ones), so you employee them as contractors, but your probably right in that it would cause some sort of labour / duty of care type issues.

Pearce to the Storm an option. If Pearce is about the Wins, and not all about the cash, and if the Storm want him, surely that is where he ends up. It would skyrocket the Storm back into Premiership favouritism for mine and Pearce would learn even more from Smith and Slater combined than he would with Cronk.

This will be very interesting. I think the storm is a perfect fit. Gets Pearce away from the bright lights of Sydney and how sweet for him if he could help the Storm go back to back and deny the Roosters. Hmmmm, things just got very interesting.

@Ice wrote:Pearce to the Storm an option. If Pearce is about the Wins, and not all about the cash, and if the Storm want him, surely that is where he ends up. It would skyrocket the Storm back into Premiership favouritism for mine and Pearce would learn even more from Smith and Slater combined than he would with Cronk.

This will be very interesting. I think the storm is a perfect fit. Gets Pearce away from the bright lights of Sydney and how sweet for him if he could help the Storm go back to back and deny the Roosters. Hmmmm, things just got very interesting.

Was thinking this myself when it was announced. They do seem to have a lot of faith in the halfback that is the clone of cronk tho. Would be a great move from the storm to pick him up tho IMO but would stall the progress of the young half they have unless there was a munster/slater injury.

@Krump wrote:When was the last time the NRL went a whole year being on top of it?

Generally they are, but sure a number of teams cop small fines each year and then every decade or so there is a massive cap scandal. So yeah, they are literally never 100% on top of it but prob 95% on top of it each year.